Just another sign how much global warming alarmists have been keeping us in the dark.

This failure to release the data shows o what extent so many such alarmists have been going on faith. And reminds me of a challenge I have occasionally made over the past four or five years to friends convinced about the reality of the AGW hypothesis, asking them, based on the global warming “science,” to predict what temperatures will be five or ten years hence. If the earth warmed as per their predictions, then I would join them in supporting drastic carbon-reducing measures.

Instead of taking me up on my challenge, they respond that in five (or ten) years, it will be too late, that we need to act now. Like those withholding the data, they too refrained from giving me figures. And anyway, from what I’ve been reading in recent days, it seems had any of them taken up my challenge, well, they’d have to explain why temperatures these past few years have, instead of increasing, been decreasing.

So, yes, let’s look at the data. And in the three years it was supposed to take to reexamine them, if we see a warming trend, I might be less of a skeptic than I now am, but given what we’ve learned in the past two weeks, global warming hypothesists have a lot more to do to convince me (and a lot of others) of the merits of AGW than they did a few years back.

I’m just glad Climategate is as big a “story” as it’s proven to be. It gives me hope that the world isn’t utterly insane. I mean, if the UK’s Met office is “admitting that public confidence in the science on man-made global warming has been shattered…” that is huge, and a sign of real hope.

Ran, per your comments… I couldn’t agree more. Global warming (which I accept as real; just not as man-made) could have large net benefits, possibly including a reduction in the severity of tropical storms (not a worsening of them). But if GW is such a problem and disaster, yadda yadda, that must be dealt with now… then why aren’t we working on putting sun reflectors in orbit? They could be tiny, deflecting only something like 0.2% of the Sun’s annual radiation to end global warming as we know it.

Leftist “solutions” to the “problem” of global warming always, always, always manage to involve socialism and a grinding down of the human spirit under ever-growing government, rather than some rather easier and more helpful technological fixes. Imagine that.

I am sick of fake environmentalism. Al Gore is a polluter and is gonna hurt the poor. He generates billions and that comes from dead trees so Al Gore doesn’t care about the environment, his green movement only cares about generating greens, aka dollar bills.

Environmental extremism has been my hobby-horse since the late 70’s. I had studied Geochemistry at the graduate level, which has sadly been folded up into Enviro-Science.

Even in the mid-80’s, the field was filled with Jacobins – to a man, the scientists coming up were the folks who got their degrees solely to stay out of Vietnam. Remember that when you hear about how liberal the current crop of scientists are!

Anyway, I recall interning on a small research vessel taking and logging core samples from the Hudson River bed when I noticed that the results were unexpectedly favorable. Trace chemicals were way down and I asked the lead researcher about it.

“Oh, we can’t tell people that the Hudson is safe to swim in or else they’ll jump back in and ruin it again.”

My younger self completely bought this line of liberal paternalism. How clever, I thought.

The icing on the cake? The research body I worked for was in on the East Anglia email dump.

The MET now says the previous statements about the re-do were taken out of context – It WILL NOT be re-examining the data. They do say however the will release all data, code, and documentation* to the public within a three year period. I would have preferred the former, but this, if indeed they are good on their word, is a very good step in the right direction.

As for Charles Johnson: What happened? I mean, we know what happened to Sullivan. (Progressive loss of his reasoning powers, possibly due to long-term use of AIDS drugs including marijuana, his desire to be approved by the leftist(s) he sleeps with, and so forth… plus 2/24/04, the date that Bush proposed a Federal Marriage Amendment.) Now it looks more and more like Chuck is becoming as kooky and intellectually dishonest. What’s in play with him?

[…] GayPatriot, In wake of Climategate, we’re beginning to learn just how much global warming alarmists have been … This failure to release the data shows to what extent so many such alarmists have been going on […]

Clearly there’s more than a lite gust of world dissent in the air. What with congressional attention growing and the head of a prominent climate change group stepping aside the bedrock of anything climate related is now being questioned.

Former NASA scientist, Roy Spencer, makes a case for a high degree of futility apparent in previous attempts to estimate cloud feedbacks in the climate system. He says. “unless we can measure cloud feedbacks in nature, we can not test the feedbacks operating in computerized climate models.” In other words, it is not possible (at least not yet) to measure cloud feedbacks because the two directions of causation are intermingled in nature.

In light of these and other recent revelations its no wonder Al Gore is making himself absent at Copenhagen next week.

I think there is a bigger story here. Why do we have to believe any of these so called liberal experts on anything?
It is time for more whistle blowers to tell us the truth about all sorts of liberal data fraud. Is the unemployment rate really 10% or is it 20%.
Is the GDP again growing at a 2% rate or is that data a fraud too?
Has the stimulus porkulus spending gone to all of Obamas cronies?
the fifth estate doesn’t check any liberal data, as they agree with 100% of the faux findings. It must be conservative whistle blowers.

#9: Sonic: if there was ever a case for open-source software, this is it.

Since we taxpayers are on the hook for all this “research”, all the data and the software used to examine it should be public domain.

If there is a real case for AGW (ACC?) then full disclosure should support the case.

Just a question for the true believers: exactly what period in the earth’s past would you select as the “correct” climate? And once you’ve selected this timespan, how would you show that IT wasn’t an anomaly?

It’s almost always the case, that when someone says they have an announcement that will blow your mind or something, it’s almost always extremely underwhelming. I keep thinking of the big Big-Foot thing a few years ago, where two guys held this BIG scheduled news conference, which, because it was schedule, got some coverage, and they were going to reveal stunning evidence that they had indeed found a real Big-Foot carcass. The to-do turned out not to reveal much of anything, just a new address for a new Big-Foot Hunters website they launched.

And the Big-Foot carcass….. just a large Big-Foot Halloween costume laid out in a big freezer.